The most interesting part that I am sure many folks are missing
is that only 4 now qualify under the NTIA/NIST bidding process
they are those that filed back in January I believe on the
"Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020".
The are as follows:
INEG. INC.
MHSC INC.
ORSC
and somebody named Steve Page.
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, domainiac wrote:Regards,> "Unfortunately, the current situation still promotes an unlevel playing
> field. The Department of Commerce extended NSI's contract without even
> considering any competing registrars to run the registry.Doing otherwise would embroil them in a nasty lawsuit which the DOC might
not win, resulting in the whole ICANN house-of-cards folding.> In addition, the registry will be charging registrars the still-inflated
> price $12 per domain name, and though NSI the registry and NSI the
> registrar are technically two separate entities, the bottom line is that
> they both share the same balance sheet."
>All of the above are completely correct assertations. It seems that
the most equitable answer is for prospective registries to be granted
stewardship of three TLD's subject to the same agreement that NSI is
bound to. While it is impossible to completely level the field given that
NSI is allowed to maintain control of the captive audience registered
under .com, .net, and .org, offering each registry stewardship of
three TLDs would certainly come the closest to doing so.Refusal to do anything in this regard would certainly seem to me to
perpetuate the current enviroment of unfair competition, and would also
exhibit a lack of good faith(any really) effort to compensate for such
inequities.I can only hope that Register.com and anyone else that is
prepared to take on the responsibilities of a registry will demand
whatever rights they may have to fair and equitable treatment from the
DOC/ICANN to the fullest extent possible under the law.While soundbites in web news magazines sound nice and are likely to find
some sympathetic ears, given the track record, it has become
apparent that nothing short of the legal assertion of such rights will aid
in the resolution of these inequities.It is incumbent upon the U.S. Government and its agents to act in a
non-discriminatory and equitable fashion(or so I like to believe.) It is
likewise incumbent upon a party desiring such treatment to seek redress
when it is not afforded them. If parties such as Register.com are
unwilling to assert their rights in this regard, then they have little
room to complain when they feel slighted.The unelected, interim Board of ICANN is not going to do this for them.
> My take on this is: There really is no justification for continuing a sole
> source procurement for the registry function. However, the alternative is
> to litigate with NSI because NSI doesn't want to risk losing a competition
> over the registry.Likewise the DOC doesn't want any potential lack of authority in
gifting ICANN with the powers it wishes to vest in them exposed.> In either case the gamble here is that nobody will formerly protest the
> extension of the sole source procurement to NSI.It's a reasonable gamble. Who has the necessary infrastructure(both
technically and financially) and most importantly the *interest* in taking
over the registry function from a company that isn't going to give it over
willingly? (net loons with non-existent organizations need not respond.)/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
"This is our time. It will not come again."
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
